Here are 2 boxes.
The one on the left has a sheep inside.
The one on the right has a beetle inside.
“Draw me a sheep,” the little prince demanded.
And the pilot obliged.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with the reference, it’s from The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I highly recommend you read it. Please—don’t make the mistake of dismissing it as being a book for little children.
Now, I will continue.
After failed attempts of drawing a sheep that would satisfy the little prince,
the pilot drew him this box.
“Your sheep is inside,” he explained.
And the face of the little prince lit up.
“Just the sheep I wanted,” he announced.
Don’t you find it beautiful how we can see beyond appearances?
Somewhere in the book, a tamed fox said, “What is essential is invisible to the eye.”
In another story, Wittgenstein handed me this box
and asked me a question:
“If I told you there was a beetle inside this box, and everyone here talks about the ‘beetle’ as if they all had the same thing in their own box, and the word serves its purpose, what would be the point of arguing that you first need to see what’s actually inside the box before agreeing to call it a ‘beetle’?”
Yes, that’s Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box.
Though, do I have to explain that I just made that question up to get to my point?
You won’t see Wittgenstein quoted anywhere asking that, okay?
Just so we’re clear 😉
And because I just made that up, I can change the question at the end. And I will. To help you better understand, I hope.
So, the new question is:
“What would be the point of arguing that you first need to see what’s actually inside this box and everyone else’s box before you can say they are talking about the same thing, given that people already understand each other?”
Let that question simmer for a moment.
And then more questions:
What if you can never look inside?
What if it’s a cat and not a beetle?
What if the box is empty?
“[W]hat if these people’s word ‘beetle’ had a use nonetheless? — If so, it would not be the name of a thing.
“No one can ‘divide through’ by the thing in the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.” 1
The thing or no-thing inside the box doesn’t matter.
“Beetle” is not the name of a thing. “Beetle” is not tied to something fixed and unchanging.
What it is is its use in the language.
I feel like I lost you right there.
Did I?
You must be asking, “How is this talk about boxes and sheep and beetles relevant to my everyday life?”
Let me try to give you an answer.
And I will start by repeating: “Beetle” is not the name of a thing. “Beetle” is not tied to something fixed and unchanging.
We ought not navigate the world assuming fixed meanings. Confusion and misunderstandings are bound to arise when we do. Because many times, we’re talking about different things entirely. Most arguments are misunderstandings.
Being aware of this can make us better communicators and more open to different interpretations. We get closer to becoming better versions of ourselves.
How?
When we realize that a word could mean countless things, with no possibility to look inside another person’s mind to verify what exactly they mean, we learn to ask our questions to make sure we understand. And that we are talking about the same thing when engaging in conversations.
Instead of beginning with assumptions, we learn to begin with seeking clarity. Like, “What do you mean when you say love or peace or kindness or justice?” When that is made clear, then there is hope for a fruitful conversation.
We may be the only ones who can see what really matters. Like the little prince and his sheep. And Wittgenstein’s beetle in a box. But through communication, we can help others see it, too.
While no one can look inside our heads, we can show others what we have in mind by talking about it.
Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations is about meaning and language. But it’s also about clarity and how we can have a better understanding of one another through communication.
What is pain, peace, love, suffering, justice, kindness?
We may hold different pictures in our heads of what these concepts mean. But imagine a world where we listen to understand, rather than impose our ideologies and seek to prove others wrong.
I invite you to read The Little Prince and Philosophical Investigations. But please don’t blame me when you can’t sleep at night if you do.
Cheers!
1 Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker, and Joachim Schulte, rev. 4th ed. (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), §293.